Comments on: The sad state of console cycles

Nintendo's CEO thinks the video game industry has it all wrong with its decision to release new consoles every four years. Don Reisinger thinks that opinion is way off base.

[jrm125]

i disagree

Sony doesn't rely on the 4 year console cycle. Console's simply stay viable as long as they keep making money. The PS2 is certainly past that point...and the only reason new ones come out is to trump the current leader.

[sticks1839]

4 years is too short

Looking at the history, only the Xbox 360 was released 4 years after its predecessor. Usually it was 5 or 6 years, and Sony would like to extend that along with Nintendo. I think your commments on hardware losses are not correct. The early months/years of each new console launch is a net loss to the company; whereas, the PS2 is still making Sony a ton of money today and would be even more so without the introduction of the new generation of consoles. Not to mention it's good for the consumer. A $400-600 console every 4 years is $100-150 a year. Throw in some games and the cost of console gaming becomes a very expensive entertainment.

[cckcmain]

The '4 Year Console'

Don, I don't agree with you about the 4 year console idea. When you said:

"Microsoft and Sony rely on new consoles every four years. Think of it this way: after four years on a console that is basically only able to play games in the traditional sense, what else is there to do?"

I don't believe you really took the console lifetimes in consideration.

Microsoft is the first (first out of the big 3) to release a console within a 4 year period. If you look at the (American) release for each company:

PS1 - 95
PS2 - 00
PS3 - 06

Xbox - 01
X360 - 05

N64 - 96
Gamecube - 01
Wii - 06

By the end of the Playstation 2's lifespan, they had maxed the limits of what developers could do with the hardware. You could argue that with a game like God of War 2, the developers had finally realized the full potential of the PS2 (Load times, graphics, gameplay).

I went with an Xbox instead of a PS2 and I was really disappointed when Microsoft announced a new console so soon. I feel they did not get close to fully optimizing their games. I felt cheated, and I felt it was a bad move for Microsoft to release a new console before Sony and not have the "superior hardware and graphics". The Playstation 2 had released a year prior to the 360, and the Playstation 3 wasn't released until a year AFTER the 360. The Playstation 2 was still selling units and games quite well.

Sony had announced their plans for a 10 year console. Can it happen? I think it's a possibility. I have no doubt Sony will push their console for at least 6 years. I have little faith the Wii will be able to go for 6 years (mainly due to graphics). When Wii players start seeing the PS3 / 360 screenshots, I think they'll want one of those as well.

I have yet to jump into this generation's console war. I was disappointed with the handful of "good games" the N64 offered us, and moved on to the Xbox. I was disappointed with the Xbox's early games, but it really pushed a new generation of consoles with the harddrive / online support.

I would love to have a PS3 due to Sony's record for supporting their console in the long term and the awesome games, but I'm not going to pay an insane amount for one.

The Wii would be fun to play, and I have no doubt Big N will have fun games (and interesting gameplay), but I would always wish I had a 360 / PS3 when I see the games they have. The controls on the Wii feel "gimmicky".

The 360 - I feel burned by Microsoft. Are we going to see another Microsoft console in 4 years? I already had 1 Xbox break, and with the 360's hardware failures, I'm not quick to run out and get one.

[aztec92154]

Better graphics make games more fun to play,right?

"How many times can you play Madden with the same player models until you start asking for more detail?"

Are gamers still looking for beauty in their games yes. Do MOST people think, "hmm... I like this game, but it would be so much MORE FUN if the graphics were better." NO. Fun != graphics. BETTER GRAPHICS DONT MAKE A GAME ANY MORE FUN. For example, Guitar Hero or Rock Band. The question is, is this game more fun on the PS3 than on the PS2 because of the graphics??? The answer is no, and I think that is the point that Nintendo is trying to make. Developers must STOP focusing on making games look good and focus on making them FUN. We need to go back to the days when the focus wasn't on frame rates, but on how FUN the game is.

[jev55]

100% right

I completely agree with this article for several reasons. I have both a Wii and
an Xbox 360, and I love each console for different reasons. The Wii is fun to
play with other people, when I have friends over or with my girlfriend. But the
360 is my "real" gaming system. I consider myself a hard core gamer, and I
ALWAYS want better graphics. Now I'm not saying that better graphics equals
better gameplay. But most people are going to prefer better graphics. Are
games like FF7 and Half Life (1 and 2) great games?? YES. Would both of
them be better if the game engines were re-done so that the graphics were
better? OF COURSE! I'm disappointed with games like Halo 3 that are all looks
and no substance, but at the same time in the new world of hi definition,
developers need to keep pushing the limits. And if that means releasing a
new console every four years, I will gladly shell out the $600 every four years
to buy one.

[sting7k]

True for microsoft

Perhaps you haven't seen the multiple statements sony has made regarding
their plans for the ps3 to be a 10 year console. And also to support the ps2
for nearly that long. The ps2 is still being made and has new games coming
all the time. And it is still selling at high levels, better than even the ps3.
Clearly graphics do not decide who wins. Although the more demanding
dedicated gamers will always flock to the newest consosle to have the best
experience there is still a large market of people who don't need it. The ps2
is really the only player in this market, perhaps along with the Wii. I consider
myself a gamer and today that means the xbox 360. It will be 2 years old
this holiday season and already has a huge library of some amazing games
and many many more to come. The ps3, well sorry but I see no reason at this
point to pick it up. The price is just too high and the HD format war is
uninteresting to me. Most games are also avalible on the 360. I can see the
ps3 picking it up quickly and if it lasts 10 years that is great. I don't see how
nintendo can keep the wii for 10 years though. It is barely more powerful
than the wii and after a while the coolness of the motion sensor remote will
ware off and people will realize they are just playing the gamecube but with a
different controller. I bet microsoft will have a new console ready within the
next 3-4 years although I don't see why because the 360 is already damn
powerful and games are looking amazing.

[mogamer]

Console releases

Sony's strategy is to keep a console around for 10 years. But that means the system will still have games even after it's replacement comes out. The PS1 still had games coming out as late as 2005, well into the PS2's lifetime. Sony hopes to do this with the PS2 and PS3. They probably will still come out with a new console every 5 - 6 years. But if the PS3 falters, then Sony may bring out a replacement sooner.

MS came out with the Xbox 360 because they wanted to trump the competition with a head start. Even MS has been saying that they would like the Xbox 360 to stick around longer.

[Danwo]

You almost got it right...

Alot of what you said was true but you began to lose it when you spoke of four year cycles. I'm thinking more like 5 to six year cycles.

[skarloss]

Like the 4-year life cycle....

this article DOES NOT make any freaking sense! I think MOST people are up in arms about the fact that nintendo is not only concentrating PURELY on GAMEPLAY and FUN FACTOR, but it's also finding NEW ways to bring those two together in games...
I think the writer of this article IS MISSING THE POINT:
If nintendo can profit from innovation, so can third party Companies!!! all you need to do is... INNOVATE! (what a silly concept huh?!) to be original, creative, competitive and offer value and quality and to strive to improve on your next project. THAT is nintendo's vision.
"Sad as it is, Iwata is dreaming. From the perspective of hardware manufacturers, new console releases mean a jump in revenue and unique opportunities for growth." ********. Its greed and lack of vision. and it creates problems for smaller game companies.... new consoles MAY generate revenue right away (although you may want to ask sony about that) but that means game companies MAY only be able to produce ONE truly profitable game per company per console (cycle)!!!
Think Konami, a BIG company: if MGS4 takes 2 years to develop, and by the time the sequel comes out a NEW machine is on the horizon... do they invest on the current system or start over with the upcoming one...? What if (a big what if...I know) the game fails to turn in profit? what does konami do then?
It gets better:
"MS and Sony rely on new consoles every 4yrs....what else is there to do? Sure, developers could create new and innovative games that keep us coming back for more, but the state of this industry dictates sports games, derivative gameplay, and sequels. And whether you want to believe it or not, it's the graphics and technology that make the difference."
WHHHHHHHAT?! *** are you smoking? you said it yourself! "developers could create new and innovative games that keep us coming back for more" why don't they??? It would only make sense innovate and keep people COMING back for more (=$$$) by then development of games SHOULD be easier and cheaper for well-run companies, leaving time and resources to work on MORE NEW ways to innovate which = sales+profits = happy gamers. (frankly, Why TF would I care about being able to see kobe's sweat, more than being able to ENJOY and have FUN PLAYING the game????)
I'm Not done...
another major reason is that games become stale on a single console after a while...How many times can you possibly play X game until you realize that nothing in the way of ingenuity has surfaced? How many times can you play Madden with the same player models until you start asking for more detail? Simply put, gamers are still looking for beauty."
again, WHAAAAAAAAA?! (I need to get your herb hookup, that is some mind effing stuff you're puffing) How many times can you play madden period?! Madden is the EPITOME of what is wrong with the current business model!!! is it beauty or ingenuity??? do you care about more? better graphics(look! we can pause the game and zoom to that QB's butt crack!?) or gameplay? (I...got....to....beat...this......level...)
almost there:
"In fact, one game developer, David Perry explained to Disposable Media this year that, "gamers are attracted to beautiful looking games." You can't argue with his logic...
WHO THE F.U.C.K. is dave perry and what has he done for me lately??? and he is like you said ONE game developer and I can argue with his logic... (after I'm done inserting both copies of the matrix games down his throat) yes dave, games ARE attracted to beautiful looking games and by now with the current technology on ALL SYSTEMS, you SHOULD BE ASHAMED if you bring out a game that doesn't look at the very least "beautiful" and the problem is, we get stuck playing the same game in a different but albeit prettier outfit EVERY TIME, with ONLY minor improvements in innovation, gameplay and ultimately... fun. (think of it this way: what if every time you went to magic mountain you had to pay A LOT more money for riding the rollercoaster because it has undergone an "upgrade") boy I would feel stupid halfway thru the ride when I realize the upgrade was nothing more than new seats and a new paint job. no new twists, no new turns, just the same roller coaster ride I have been riding all these times... would you pay that much more money?
and here:
"And even if you read reviews by video game journalists, one of the first comments will always be that the game is either "gorgeous" or "has the design of a PlayStation 2 game."
My brain just exploded...

[w00fd06]

Multi-console....... console

I saw in PCMag something called an "ammo-box", it was a concept, but bear with me, it would play any game game for Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft consoles, you could use the corresponding controller, you could swap out the processor/gpu to your liking. Now, wouldn't that be the ultimate console(yes, i know it sounds awfully like a computer, but the game library would be larger). Even if it did take the fun out of the console wars.

[GreyClaw]

I have to wonder if you are into games

or follow the industry at all or just decided to pontificate about this yesterday? There are so many points that you try to make that don?t even add up.

Your assertion that Iwata-san, whose company (the Granddaddy of the industry) which; A.) Currently has a hit product--that is essential a Gamecube with different software and packaging, and B.) Has first-hand experience in the folly of relying on the hardware ?*******? alone to keep them in business, ?is dreaming?, is in of itself ridiculous.

Consider that the No.1 selling system, which for a good while was still outselling the "next-gen" consoles is the Playstation 2, --is six years old and still going strong. Also consider that many of the PS2?s (and the industry?s) best titles came out for the PS2 past your imaginary barometer and Sony (barring some major catastrophe) pledges to support and sell it for three years more and PS3 for another nine.

The reason for the current trend that you perceive as a cycle is the fact that the companies are engaged in a (stupid but necessary) game of one-upmanship, plain and simple.

There are obvious factors that you failed to consider:
1. The R&D and production on the console usually takes years.
2. The game titles themselves can take many years to develop and produce. This time keeps getting longer as the games become more involved?unless you are Team Ninja or Toei who make the same game over and over.
3. There needs to be enough overlap time for the development/test machines to be delivered to the game makers so that they can make the games in the first place.
4. It takes years for the production costs to drop enough to allow the console maker to start turning a profit per unit, and for the normal fans like me to buy the machine after the bugs have been worked out and the price dips.
5. Irrespective of the marketing hype and BS, it is the third parties that make or break the console in a symbiotic relationship.

By your skewed metric, each company would produce one or two probably half-assed/best guess games for a given console before the company had to devote money and staff to learning a new platform for the next console (especially if Sony or Nintendo did follow Microsoft in providing little or no backwards compatibility), and then there would cease to be the great games

To the rest of your,? hmmm? analysis.

Sony does not ?rely on the changing of consoles?. I would wager that if there was no Xbox 360, the PS3 would be debuting later and many of their woes with the console might not have occurred. I would also posit that could MS have foreseen the millions all those shoddy 360 machines is costing them, the 360 might be launching this season with Halo 3.

Nintendo isn?t the only company that can innovate; they have just been at the task longer, with many failures (PowerGlove, U-force, etc.) to go with their successes (the Wii control system)

?But in this new war, the tables have been turned and now it's Sony... Simply put, new consoles give these companies a new lease on life--something a 10-year cycle can't provide.?

What? Last time I checked Sony is a successful manufacturer and researcher of products and technologies -?some of them far removed from the gaming industry. Microsoft (of late)on the other hand, I am inclined to agree . Also Sony, is poised to do much, much more than catch up because in those ten years the kind of televisions/home theater setups needed to really enjoy all that next-gen goodness will be affordable and nearly ubiquitous, allowing more people consider buying a (cheaper)PS3, developers will have mastered programming for multi-core CPUs and mastered the PS3 hardware to be better able to exploit the PS3?s potential while Microsoft is trying to hawk the X720 or whatever else they going push out next.

Games don?t become stale just because of limitations of the hardware, the Gameboy and it?s longevity is proof of that. Games become stale when they lack imagination, ingenuity, or originality. If the game strikes a chord with the player, that is all that matters. That?s why the Xbox Live Arcade and the Wii Virtual Console exist and make money selling games like Pac-Man. That?s why the PS2 still pulls in millions of units a year.

?..How many times can you possibly play a derivative first-person shooter on an...?

It is ironic that you should cite FPS games and Madden. A Genre and a franchise that can be said to be stale regardless of what platform they are on. First Person Shooters were ?old? when Halo first debuted. What set it apart was that it had a captivating story that was unlike any of its contemporaries. The Halo 3 core game, though shiny and ?next gen? was fairly stale, -even to some its fans. The same thing could be said about Madden due to EA?s monopoly on licensed leagues? games and the lack of competition who just churn out a game every year.

?...Simply put, gamers are still looking for beauty.?

Really? You know people that play a game they really enjoy enough to keep and replay
who just decide one day that the game sucks because of the graphics aren?t up to snuff? Not because the challenge or enjoyment has gone?

True there are many people who fit the profile that you have described but I think many of them also fall in the to groups that stand in line and/or must be the first to jump on every new thing. They are responsible for the initial sales spikes that occur with every new product, that fall away to nothing when whatever it is turns out to be mediocre. Those groups are not what any forward thinking company wants to rely on. Nintendo and Sony realize this.

In addition, I remember that most of the "looks like a last gen/PS2 title" comments were leveled at the first batch of titles for the X-Box 360 and some or the PS3 because they failed to motivate customers to spend $$$ on the new consoles. Could it have been that those first developers did not have the time to master the new hardware before their rollout deadlines?

I have to wonder what kind of context you are trying to create with the quotes you cited because a lot of gamers on many forums are constantly commenting on the fact that looks aren?t everything. A good amount of the buzz around, Assassin?s Creed and Crysis also comes from the fans (myself included) of the developers? past efforts. Prince of Persia and Far Cry?which would have been mediocre games at best if they had been rushed just so Ubisoft could keep jumping to new hardware after each title.

My opinion of your article is that it is trying to minimize a complex concept down to an ?over drinks? conversation snippet about something that you seem to know little about.

[GlennW007]

Can we expect a Wii 2 soon?

It may make sense for Nintendo to do a Wii2. It must be compatible with the older Wii. Then Nintendo can supply new graphics & other features to the machine. Your $250 investment is still good. Many of the Wii games won't benefit from the change. The essential gameplay remains the same.

Sometimes I wonder what developers are thinking when they port games to the DS. The screen is too small for some users. Sport games & others will work & play much better on a larger screen. It appears the TV manufaturers are all moving to larger widescreen designs. Nintendo will be there to serve the market when enough TV's are sold. THe Wii can remain an easy to use Game System. You probably have a DVD player that will handle the HD stuff. Check out the $99 unit at WalMart. I bet that will seem a high price in a year. Sony may be in trouble with a too expensive system. Anybody remember Betamax? Only a sucker would repeat that fiasco.

[scr33ner]

Sony's hardware cycle

Sony is already on this track. The PSOne was released in 1994 it wasn't until 2002 they stopped producing hardware & games.

The PS2 was released in 2000. Sony just came out with a 'newer' slim line PS2. It isn't going to receive the same software support from Sony but 3rd party publishers are still going to support it for at least year- maybe more. There is a ginormous install base after all- over 120million.

The PS3 will more than likely follow this cycling. Sony is eating much humble pie and crow with this system right now- but in the long run I believe it will enjoy the same success as its predecessors.